NickOtani'sNeo-Objectivism

[David Quinn]

Okay, it's become clear that you don't want to engage in any proper discussion of the issues. Bye for now.

-

[Kevin Solway]

Kevin wrote:

[Nature is the totality of all there is.]

Actually, this is simply a definition. It is not arrived at through deduction, and nor can it be tested empirically.

I must now say, however, that I am having trouble with the idea that anything can be defined outside of the process of deductive reasoning. You don’t just pull these things out of thin air -- entirely. At the very least, the process would have involved stripping away illogical ideas -- such as in the example David mentioned above where he questioned the reason one would not define Nature as the solar system. In this sense, the conclusion is deductive: it is a necessary one based on its premises -- and true or false, accordingly.

I suppose any definition involves a certain amount of deduction. For example, it needs to be deduced whether the definition is useful and makes any sense.

For example, if someone defines "All there is" to be what can fit on a postage stamp, we can deduce whether it is a useful definition or not.

Likewise, if someone claims that a form of argument based on false assumptions is "valid", we can deduce whether it is a sensible definition or not.

[Leyla Shen]

NickO wrote:

First, I wasn't talking only about how premises are arrived at. I was talking about rejecting the established definition of validity and choosing, instead, to believe something one wants to believe. This is like saying, "Well, you can believe 2+5=7 if you and all those academic mathematicians want, but I'd rather believe it is 48."

Rubbish. It’s not like that at all. Maths is beyond a valid argument and incomparable to the definition of validity in logic (specialised usage).

Since the premises and thereby the conclusions can be true or false, a valid argument is valid by law ("establishment"). But what kind of establishment? The issue isn't whether or not the definition stands as a plausible definition, it's about -- as Kevin put it in a previous post which you did not address -- the substance of the argument.

A quick synonym study reveals this point: VALID implies being supported by objective truth or generally accepted authority <a valid reason for being absent> <a valid marriage>. SOUND implies a basis of flawless reasoning or of solid grounds.

Second, I wonder if you or anyone else here knows the difference between deduction and induction.

Wonder away.

Third, definitions such as "Bachelors are unmarried males," are not arbitray subjective constructs. Neither is the definition of validity in deductive arguments. It means "the form of the deductive arument such that if the premises are true the conclusion has to be true."

Yes, I know. Should I repeat that back to you?

[NickOtani]

Okay, it's become clear that you don't want to engage in any proper discussion of the issues. Bye for now.

Proper according to you is not necessarily proper. You are the one not interested in truth or learning. It's protecting your ego and pretending not to be ignorant. But you can't hide from those of us who know just the bare minimum of real philosophy and logic. You are a phony.

Bye, I'd love to have a good discussion of the issues, but not with you. Don't post on me anymore.

Since the premises and thereby the conclusions can be true or false, a valid argument is valid by law ("establishment"). But what kind of establishment? The issue isn't whether or not the definition stands as a plausible definition, it's about -- as Kevin put it in a previous post which you did not address -- the substance of the argument.

It doesn't matter what the substance of the argument is. If it is invalid, the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. It can be argued that logic is based on underlying facts of reality. Blind faith is something reserved for those who don't want to follow the rules of inference of reason.

Likewise, if someone claims that a form of argument based on false assumptions is "valid", we can deduce whether it is a sensible definition or not.

Sensible to you is not what sensible people find sensible.

bis bald,

Nick

[Rhett]

.

It doesn't matter what the substance of the argument is. If it is invalid, the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. It can be argued that logic is based on underlying facts of reality. Blind faith is something reserved for those who don't want to follow the rules of inference of reason.

Picture if you will an experience, an experience of a computer screen, keyboard and a pair of hands. This experience as we have named it is temporary, i.e. it had a beginning, and will not continue forever. I consider this uncontroversial; experiences of this nature are exactly what make up reality.

You would posit that the hands are separate to the other items, and that the items have their own existence in time, i.e. that even though the experience is undivided (inclusive) and temporary, the real fact is that it is divided and temporarily permanent.

I consider the substance of this analysis to be very important, and that your conclusions do not follow the premises.

.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

...The Genius forum is designed for thinkers on the more anarchist philosophical path of understanding reality. It's about stripping things away while not abandoning core reasoning and logic.

As I demonstrate above, David Quinn and ksolway do abandon core reasoning and logic.

Not quite. You first asked Quinn how he defined validity in a deductive argument. This implied you considered it a matter of opinion, otherwise you would have asked: "do you know the definition of validity in a deductive argument?". But when he tells you how he defines it you claim suddenly that it can never be a matter of opinion at all and it should be following 'establishment'. The intent of your question appears thus to be deceptive.

Quinn might have ignored the commonly made difference between 'sound' (true) and 'valid' (sound internal logic) but in reality when having some unsound premise this can only be the result of having applied an unsound argumentation somewhere in the process of arriving at such premise. The whole chain of arguments finds place in the same logical domain where the same rules apply. Therefore it's reasonable to also question the validity of a deductive argument after a premise is known to be unsound or uncertain. Or at least one can question the relevancy such validity now has.

One could also say that Quinn went for the holistic approach.

[Blair]

I think that's the crux of it right there. NickOtani clearly can't get a grasp on holistic thinking.

[Dan Rowden]

The langauge of formal logic needs re-appraisal in my view. To say that a correctly structured syllogism contitutes a "valid argument" - of itself - is something bound to cause alarm to people who notice that the premises and therefore conclusion of said argument are nonsense. Naturally a "valid argument" needs to have a formally correct structure but when we find ourselves using language that states that a valid argument can be untrue, we are playing loose and fast, and silly, with language. The way around the problem is simply to define a "valid argument" so as to include the necessity for correct form and true premises, which, Kevin's version seemed to do anyway. Part of the reason acadmics have trouble with this is because many will argue that we can't demonstrate the truth value of such premises - that they are ultimately just axioms accepted for convenience. Because of this the formal structure of argument becomes the only thing about which we can speak using the term "valid".

Frankly, anyone with half a brain in their head knows what a valid argument looks like so I don't know we we needed to have this discussion in the first place. It's tangential and unnecessary.

As to defining existence, Nick. Sartre may well have thought it impossible, but that's just another reason for me to dismiss his worth as a thinker. We implicitly define existence every time we speak of something as existing or not existing.

To exist means "to present an appearance". This definition neatly covers the empirical and abstract realms of reality. For those who believe it impossible to define the term "exists", any subsequent discussion of the way in which things do this ineffable thing of existing - be it objectivey or subjectively - seems like a huge waste of time.


Dan Rowden

[NickOtani]

I consider the substance of this analysis to be very important, and that your conclusions do not follow the premises.

Can you recognize the premises for my conclusions, or do you also like to toss around terms for which you do not know the meaning?

The intent of your question appears thus to be deceptive.

Rubbish! Someone who knows the answer would not be deceived.

Frankly, anyone with half a brain in their head knows what a valid argument looks like so I don't know we we needed to have this discussion in the first place. It's tangential and unnecessary.

Anyone with half a brain can see that people on this board toss around terms about which they do not know the meaning. It's a joke. Stop trying to defend people who are wrong. You lose credibility.

To exist means "to present an appearance".

This is the infinitive form of a verb. It implies a subject which does it. Who or what exists? Besides, substances behind appearances do not always exist. Appearances are deceiving.

bis bald,

Nick

[Kevin Solway]

people on this board toss around terms about which they do not know the meaning.

Do you think that academics dictate what words mean, like gods, and everyone else has to adhere to their law?

In reality, people define words however they see fit. I personally don't think it's useful to call arguments that are based on false premises "valid". It's all a matter of perspective.

[NickOtani]

Do you think that academics dictate what words mean, like gods, and everyone else has to adhere to their law?

In reality, people define words however they see fit. I personally don't think it's useful to call arguments that are based on false premises "valid". It's all a matter of perspective.

I don't think you dictate what words mean, like a god, and everyone else has to adhere to your law. Perhaps when you become famous and respected scholars start to use your terminology, then you can tell us what words mean. Until then, you should at least try to learn what real philosophers are saying, before dismissing them like a bigot.

What's next? Are you going to redefine the communitive law of addition?

bis bald,

Nick

[Kevin Solway]

What's next? Are you going to redefine the communitive law of addition?

In my view, the academics are doing the equivalent when they say that arguments with false premises are valid. That is, they are redefining "valid".

However, the use of the word "valid" is justified in such circumstances provided it is qualified appropriately. For example, "The argument is valid, provided we are not concerned with its content."

[Sapius]

Nick wrote:

All humans should have a right to promote and protect their flourishing survival, not just some at the expense of others. You really shouldn’t do to others what you wouldn’t want to have done to you.

Nick, in my opinion, your efforts towards what you actually want to achieve is to make humanity really understand and adhere to the above, an obvious fact of life which most probably was realized by some much before the epic of Gilgamesh was written down on clay tablets about four thousand years ago, and yet, most of the humanity is far from it. The question is, why?

Most of the leading countries, in some form or another, incorporate this basic need in their laws, but yet, why is there a need to repeat and repeat this basic commonsensical necessity even after four thousand years? What is it that does not allow them to see this? How can we take humanity beyond the thing that is actually not allowing them to see this? And here we are, thrashing out the rules of Logic and the meaning of valid. Well….

Diebert, Sorry for the delay. I will get back later on what are the main delusions in my view. I think I will have to work quite hard to find any. And, to know from you what reality is like when it “appears”, that is when delusions are stripped away.

[NickOtani]

Nick, in my opinion, your efforts towards what you actually want to achieve is to make humanity really understand and adhere to the above, an obvious fact of life which most probably was realized by some much before the epic of Gilgamesh was written down on clay tablets about four thousand years ago, and yet, most of the humanity is far from it. The question is, why?

It is kind of discouraging to see, after years and years of anti-discrimination messages, ethnic cleansing still going on in many parts of the world. What does it take to get through to people that if we value our lives, so do others? If we are interested in our own self-interest, it is more in our interest to live in a world where people respect the interests of each other than in a world where predators freely violate the rights of others.

However, I see that this is a by-product of freedom. If we are free and morality is to have some meaning, there has to be some disagreement as to what is right and wrong. If we all knew what was right and always did it, there would be no need for morality. We would never argue about what we ought to do. We would just do it. We would be more like trees, which automatically do what their natures require, than humans who are still working on their natures.

If there is no evil in the world, there would be very little purpose or meaning to our lives. Imagine how static and sterile things would be. There would be no need for courage or bravery. Why? If we don't need to overcome obstcles, we don't need to develop these secondary virtues. We wouldn't get as much out of life as we do now. Fire tempers us. According to folks like Nietzsche, hardship makes us stronger. According to folks like William Blake, there is a need to marry heaven with hell.

bis bald,

Nick

[Dan Rowden]

Dan: Frankly, anyone with half a brain in their head knows what a valid argument looks like so I don't know we we needed to have this discussion in the first place. It's tangential and unnecessary.

Nick: Anyone with half a brain can see that people on this board toss around terms about which they do not know the meaning. It's a joke. Stop trying to defend people who are wrong. You lose credibility.

Credibility in whose eyes? Yours? I'm not interested in issues of "credibility". I don't happen to think they are wrong. They are expressing their distaste for certain formalised language within academic philosophy, and, more specifically, formal logic, and I happen to agree with their distaste. I really think you should have left your question about the definition of validity within an argument out of the discussion. It's taken us down a road we needn't have walked, in my view. Though, I guess it has revealed certain aspects of where posters are coming from. In your case it makes me shiver a tad, but then we probably have the same effect on your so we're all feeling a little icy at the moment.

Dan: To exist means "to present an appearance".

Nick: This is the infinitive form of a verb. It implies a subject which does it. Who or what exists?

I don't understand the question. The appearance (however it's labelled) is what exists ("exists" is not a verb). My definition also does away with the necessity for a subject/object dualism.

Besides, substances behind appearances do not always exist.

For me they never exist. "Substances" are just another category of appearances. I'm not using the word "appearance" here in any contingent sense. I mean it in the sense of "has identity" or A=A.

Appearances are deceiving.

No, this is a view held by shallow people. Appearances are what they are. Inferences can be wrong, but they don't alter the brute fact of what an appearance is.


Dan Rowden

[NickOtani]

They are expressing their distaste for certain formalised language within academic philosophy, and, more specifically, formal logic, and I happen to agree with their distaste.

They are expressing their distaste for something about which they know very little. And they aren't interested in learning. They would rather stagnate in their own ignorance than open their eyes.

I don't understand the question. The appearance (however it's labelled) is what exists ("exists" is not a verb). My definition also does away with the necessity for a subject/object dualism.

Okay, the appearance is what exists. Does that mean that before we saw the dark side of the moon, it didn't exist? Also, how does infinity appear? Does it not exist? We cannot see sub-atomic particles, do they not exist?

For me they never exist. "Substances" are just another category of appearances. I'm not using the word "appearance" here in any contingent sense. I mean it in the sense of "has identity" or A=A.

You don't think the liar's paradox conflicts with A=A? Please solve it for us.

No, this is a view held by shallow people. Appearances are what they are. Inferences can be wrong, but they don't alter the brute fact of what an appearance is.

Appearances are what they are, but this is a shallow analysis. People have been fooled by what appeared to be true but wasn't. If we are interested in truth, we must go further than appearances.

bis bald,

Nick

[Rhett]

.

Rhett: I consider the substance of this analysis to be very important, and that your conclusions do not follow the premises.

Nicko: Can you recognize the premises for my conclusions, or do you also like to toss around terms for which you do not know the meaning?

That's a completely worthless and evasive response Nick.


Here is my challenge again;

"Picture if you will an experience, an experience of a computer screen, keyboard and a pair of hands. This experience as we have named it is temporary, i.e. it had a beginning, and will not continue forever. I consider this uncontroversial; experiences of this nature are exactly what make up reality.

You would posit that the hands are separate to the other items, and that the items have their own existence in time, i.e. that even though the experience is undivided (inclusive) and temporary, the real fact is that it is divided and temporarily permanent.

I consider the substance of this analysis to be very important, and that your conclusions do not follow the premises."

.

[Rhett]

.

What does it take to get through to people that if we value our lives, so do others? If we are interested in our own self-interest, it is more in our interest to live in a world where people respect the interests of each other than in a world where predators freely violate the rights of others.

I see a world full of predators violating the rights of others, somewhat moderated by cultural values, political and legal systems. You're not seeing things as they are Nick.

However, I see that this is a by-product of freedom. If we are free and morality is to have some meaning, there has to be some disagreement as to what is right and wrong. If we all knew what was right and always did it, there would be no need for morality. We would never argue about what we ought to do. We would just do it. We would be more like trees, which automatically do what their natures require, than humans who are still working on their natures.

If there is no evil in the world, there would be very little purpose or meaning to our lives. Imagine how static and sterile things would be. There would be no need for courage or bravery. Why? If we don't need to overcome obstcles, we don't need to develop these secondary virtues. We wouldn't get as much out of life as we do now. Fire tempers us. According to folks like Nietzsche, hardship makes us stronger. According to folks like William Blake, there is a need to marry heaven with hell.

I don't see people as free, i see them as governed by hellish impulses, scratching, in their confusion, for a fake freedom.

Regardless of people's natures, there will always be need of judgments and discussions of what is right and wrong. Reason will always have a place.

Why should we value working endlessly on problems that can be solved (e.g. our natures)? Give me some good reasons, taking into the account the severe costs, people's sufferings.

My life, for one, would remain just as interesting and purposeful if all evil were to cease. I find your world very shallow.

Courage and bravery are qualities expressed in all manner of endeavour, from probing the limits of scientific understanding, to exploring unique environments, etc. These can continue in the absence of evil, and would keep us strong.

Static and sterile? It is your deluded mind that operates in a static and sterile manner. Yet regardless of people's thoughts nature is constantly re-manifesting, marching-on providing an infinite array of stimulation and splendour. Zing!!

.

[Rhett]

.

Okay, the appearance is what exists. Does that mean that before we saw the dark side of the moon, it didn't exist?

Correct. The dark side of the moon is an appearance. An appearance does not exist until it appears.

Also, how does infinity appear?

In the same manner as any other appearance.

We cannot see sub-atomic particles, do they not exist?

Wally. Of course scientists see sub-atomic particles, and in that moment they exist.

You don't think the liar's paradox conflicts with A=A? Please solve it for us.

I invite you to provide a version of the stanza that is acceptable to you, and i will respond to it.

Anyway, regardless of the wording of the stanza, it can never contravene A=A. The very appearance of the stanza is necessarily the very appearance that it is.

Appearances are what they are, but this is a shallow analysis. People have been fooled by what appeared to be true but wasn't. If we are interested in truth, we must go further than appearances.

People are fooled by false projections, by notions that do not match the remainder of the appearance, but even these appearances nevertheless remains in conformity with A=A.

As for going further than appearances, to what? How could we possibly venture into a zone bereft of appearances? It simply can't occur.

.

[NickOtani]

That's a completely worthless and evasive response Nick.

No, your response is evasive. You said that my conclusions did not follow from my premises, and I asked you if you could recognize the premises for my conclusions. Rather than answer, you evade by accusing me of being evasive. Interesting trick.

You're not seeing things as they are Nick.

Because you say so? How much of the real world, unfiltered through television, have you actually seen? Have you been to Vietnam or eastern and western Europe or Turkey or Japan? How do you know what I have seen and what I haven’t?

Courage and bravery are qualities expressed in all manner of endeavour, from probing the limits of scientific understanding, to exploring unique environments, etc. These can continue in the absence of evil, and would keep us strong.

Courage and bravery are manifested when someone takes a risk where harm is possible. If there is no evil, no way of being harmed, there would be no need for courage and bravery. There would be no risk taking because there would be no possibility of harm.

I invite you to provide a version of the stanza that is acceptable to you, and i will respond to it.

If I say I am lying and it is true, then it is false, but if it is false, then it is true. This conflicts with the law of identity and non-contradiction. If something is true, it cannot be false, and if something is false, it cannot be true. Of course, this is just another one of those laws made up by academic philosophers, but it is also refuted by them. How do you deal with it?

As for going further than appearances, to what? How could we possibly venture into a zone bereft of appearances? It simply can't occur.

You appear to me to be a very shallow and deluded person. Does this mean it is true that that is what you are?

Bis bald,

Nick

[David Quinn]

The liar's paradox has the identity of the liar's paradox, so it clearly doesn't violate the principle of A=A. Rather, it falsely gives the impression that a violation has occured by improperly stretching the concepts of truth and falseness beyond their breaking point. It's a kind of conjuror's trick created by a clever abusing of these concepts. An academic party trick.

In normal circumstances, assertions of truth or falseness are made towards other statements and assertions, and in the process of making this assertion, it necessarily assumes that its own being is true - otherwise, it wouldn't mean anything. A false accusation of either truth of falseness has no meaning, validity or worth.

But in the case of the liar's paradox, the assertion itself is brought into the equation and made into an object of judgment as well, which automatically stretches the concepts of truth and falseness beyond their breaking point.

In short, there is no violation of A=A because the liar's paradox is purely imaginary and a product of conceptual abuse. It no more violates A=A than the concept of a square circle does.

-

[Rhett]

.

Rhett: That's a completely worthless and evasive response Nick.

Nick: No, your response is evasive. You said that my conclusions did not follow from my premises, and I asked you if you could recognize the premises for my conclusions. Rather than answer, you evade by accusing me of being evasive. Interesting trick.

Your emotions are running riot Nick! I created the premise and suggested the deductions you would make of it. You agreed, but you're running away at the same time. Deal with my challenge please.

Rhett: You're not seeing things as they are Nick.

Nick: Because you say so? How much of the real world, unfiltered through television, have you actually seen? Have you been to Vietnam or eastern and western Europe or Turkey or Japan? How do you know what I have seen and what I haven’t?

So you really think everything's cosy, or what?

Could you please address my points?

Rhett: Courage and bravery are qualities expressed in all manner of endeavour, from probing the limits of scientific understanding, to exploring unique environments, etc. These can continue in the absence of evil, and would keep us strong.

Nick: Courage and bravery are manifested when someone takes a risk where harm is possible. If there is no evil, no way of being harmed, there would be no need for courage and bravery. There would be no risk taking because there would be no possibility of harm.

We could separate courage, say into emotional fortitude (egotist) and risk taking (sage), but it's all part of courage as most people see it. The sage can still be harmed, just there would be no emotional involvement, no extraneous upset.

Rhett: I invite you to provide a version of the stanza that is acceptable to you, and i will respond to it.

Nick: If I say I am lying and it is true, then it is false, but if it is false, then it is true. This conflicts with the law of identity and non-contradiction. If something is true, it cannot be false, and if something is false, it cannot be true. Of course, this is just another one of those laws made up by academic philosophers, but it is also refuted by them. How do you deal with it?

I don't care about it. I don't see how it's got anything to do with sensible discourse. It's just a perversity of linguistics. The statement is self-referencial and essentially empty of content. It's no wonder you like it so much. Repeat it over and over and you'll get a good head spin going like a whirling dervish. Spinning is a path to spirituality you know.

Rhett: As for going further than appearances, to what? How could we possibly venture into a zone bereft of appearances? It simply can't occur.

Nick: You appear to me to be a very shallow and deluded person. Does this mean it is true that that is what you are?

You are stating that the notion that i am "very shallow and deluded" appears to you. If that is the case then it is most definitely the case that this notion appears to you.

As for it being a true or false notion, if indeed it has genuinely made an appearance, i'd rather you try to think about it and form your own conclusion. Your own accurate conclusion that is.


.

[NickOtani]

In short, there is no violation of A=A because the liar's paradox is purely imaginary and a product of conceptual abuse. It no more violates A=A than the concept of a square circle does.

You're giving it a good effort, Dave, for something you think is trivial. However, this isn't a solution that would be recognized by the "academics" you disdain. It is the mathematical version of this paradox that Goedel uses to prove his theorem that systems cannot be both closed and consistent. If they are closed, there would have to be at least one instance of A is not A. This throws all logical proofs into some degree of uncertainty. So, for a trivial trick, it does have some power.

Your emotions are running riot Nick! I created the premise and suggested the deductions you would make of it. You agreed, but you're running away at the same time. Deal with my challenge please.

My emotions aren't doing anything, Rhett. I'm just noting that you are evading my questions. You aren't pointing out the premises for my conclusions. Perhaps you don't know what premises are.

So you really think everything's cosy, or what?

Could you please address my points?

You said I don't see things as they are, but I asked you how you knew what I have seen and what I haven't. Please address my points. Answer my questions.

We could separate courage, say into emotional fortitude (egotist) and risk taking (sage), but it's all part of courage as most people see it. The sage can still be harmed, just there would be no emotional involvement, no extraneous upset.

Harm of any kind can be seen as evil. You haven't shown how we could have courage without evil.

I don't care about it. I don't see how it's got anything to do with sensible discourse. It's just a perversity of linguistics. The statement is self-referencial and essentially empty of content. It's no wonder you like it so much. Repeat it over and over and you'll get a good head spin going like a whirling dervish. Spinning is a path to spirituality you know.

But you said you would respond to it if I provided a version of it. I provided a version of it, and you say you don't care about it. That's your promised response? That's real honest and courageous of you, Rhett. I see how you deal with challenges. We all do. You should go join a sect of Christian fundamentalists. You'd fit right in.

bis bald,

Nick

[Kevin Solway]

Goedel uses to prove his theorem that systems cannot be both closed and consistent.

There can be no such thing as a closed system, so speaking of a closed system is only gibberish. It is exactly the same as speaking of a square circle.

Closed systems cannot be any more consistent than a square circle can be.

[David Quinn]

Nick wrote:

DQ: In short, there is no violation of A=A because the liar's paradox is purely imaginary and a product of conceptual abuse. It no more violates A=A than the concept of a square circle does.

N: You're giving it a good effort, Dave, for something you think is trivial.

We're talking again, are we? While I regard almost everything academic philosophers do as trivial and useless, I do take very seriously the claim that they are challenging core principles of life, such as A=A. I consider the task of battling this misperception to be important work.

However, this isn't a solution that would be recognized by the "academics" you disdain.

I don't expect academics to recognize or agree with anything that a truthful person says.

It is the mathematical version of this paradox that Goedel uses to prove his theorem that systems cannot be both closed and consistent.

More accurately, he was talking about formal systems of a certain variety and a certain level of complexity. These systems generate their own contrived paradoxes through their artificiality and the limitations of their component parts. It's a fault of these systems themselves and has no bearing on what is true about reality itself.

If they are closed, there would have to be at least one instance of A is not A. This throws all logical proofs into some degree of uncertainty. So, for a trivial trick, it does have some power.

And yet Goedal himself used logic in order to formulate these theories and reach the conclusions that he did. So clearly, he didn't really believe that all logical reasoning was inherently uncertain. You're misinterpreting his work.

-